tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC April 18, 2019 12:00am-1:00am PDT
on the air a scant nine hours from now, that's our broadcast on this wednesday night. thank you so very much for being with us. and good night from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. tonight on all in -- >> there was not collusion, there was no obstruction. everybody knows it. >> on the eve of the redacted mueller report -- >> people did things that were very, very bad for our country and even illegal and you can say treasonous. >> the white house braces for the what the special counsel's report really said. it goes for ongoing congressional investigations. >> i came out talking about impeachment. >> congresswoman maxine waters. >> i didn't expect them to make total fools of themselves. >> why alexandria ocasio-cortez was invite and is invited by republicans in kentucky. what's going on with jared
kushner's middle east peace plan? >> we have major threats. >> all in starts right now. >> good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. at this moment we are awaiting a press conference from jerry nadler on determine's release of the mueller report. we will go live and tonight in what looks like another transparent attempt to spin mueller's findings in the president's favor, attorney general william barr announces he will hold his own press conference tomorrow morning at 9:30 to unveil his redacted version of the mueller report. the thing is the timing these reporters will not have a chance to see any of the report before barr puts his spin on it just as he did in his now infamous four-page summary clearing the president of any wrong-doing. it's the latest sign of how hard the president and his allies, including barr, are working to manage the long awaited release. the president's lawyers have
been meeting to plan their response. the times calls it a rebuttal. reportedly and this is important, with the help of the justice department itself. justice department officials had numerous conversations with white house lawyers about the special couple's conclusions according to people with knowledge of discussions. the talks have aided the legal team as they prepare a rebuttal and strategize for the public war over its findings. this comes amid concern that is the rest of us have to wait for hours after the press conference to see the report for ourselves. chairman nadler tweeting i am deeply troubled that the white house is being briefed on the mueller ahead ahead of its release. doj is saying we will not receive the report after barr's press conference. this is wrong. all of this maneuvering seems to show how much trump fears about what's in the report. wharls of what's in the redactions.
there may be exculpatory evidence in there. it may not be better than the-page summary that let the president declare an unqualified victory. >> there was no collusion with russia. no obstruction and none whatsoever. it was a complete and total exoneration. >> explicitly not what barr's letter said. it included a quote specifically saying he was not exonerated. with barr's summary in the rear view mirror, there was a downside for the president. it can only get worse from here. we know the report contains at least some damaging information. barr even in that letter suggested as much in his let or obstruction. it sets out evidence on both sides of the question that would be the question of whether the president committed obstruction
of justice and leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as difficult issues of fact concerning what the plt's actions and intent. >> we are not expecting smoking guns, but it will be worse for the president than what barr said in his outline. regardless of how much it's redacted, the report will return the focus to the key event that prompted the information in the first police. efforts by a foreign adversary to sabotage an election and put a candidate viewed in the white house. the-page summary resolved the legal question didn't find legal evidence to conclude the president committed a crime by conspireing with russia. with the legal question off the table to the side, we can take a better look at the facts that are, to a large extent, already in the public domain. the clear preference for donald trump over his opponent and
eagerness to accept help from a foreign adversary. in more detail, you may be able to draw conclusions. we are awaiting jerry nadler, but we are joined by elizabeth hoelzman when she was ray member of the committee jerry nadler now chairs. she is the author of the case for impeaching trump. melissa murray who thinks a lot about the koj solution and constitutional law. let me start with you, liz. on just this roll out. i have to say, i was a reporter in washington for years and standard operating procedure, some big document is coming out. an indictment, a report. you get it 10 to 15 minutes before the press conference and you sit there going through to prep your questions. that's standard. that's hurried and it gives the people unrolling it a leg up because they continue better than you do.
i have never ever heard of a press conference on a document that no one gets to see until after the press conference is over. >> they are desperate to control this news. this news is going have something very bad in it for the president of the united states and what we are seeing, sad, sad, sad, to use three trump words is the attorney general of the united states who is the attorney general for all the people acting as a political hatchet man for the president of the united states. ultimately this cover up is not going to work. ultimately the people of the united states are going to see what's in the report and what the facts are. >> what's weird about it, it's not a cover up. that's why i find it so strange. we can read. just give it to us. am i making too much of this? >> you have to think of the way things play out in trump world. the only person coming out worse than this is bob barr who
stained his reputation. he said he was going to be confirmed as somebody interested in transparency. this is about getting out as far as you can and let it get embedded and entrench and then it doesn't matter what questions conclusions people reach. he set up the narrative. >> when he was talking about why you give us what he was asked, why did you give us the letter when it's ready to go. here's what he said. >> in my view, i was nod interested in putting out summaies or trying to summarize. any summary regardless of who prepares it not only runs the risk of being underinclusive or overinclusive, but triggers a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await
everything coming out at once. i was not interested in a summary. >> it would trigger -- this is the problem. it would trigger discussion and now everything coming out at once. it is so transparent, i'm almost shocked. they are not getting away with it. we see what they are doing. >> we see it, but will the public see it? they will see headlines. they may not are the the report. that's what they are counting on. that's why i call it a cover up. it's an attempt to manipulate the american people and be fuddle them and confusion them. the american people can read the facts and understand the facts. this is a way to force feed them and shape the facts. it's wrong. >> i want to talk about propriety in a second. one of the things i found strange from the beginning is, in talking to different people who worked in the white house counsel's office in the past, it would not be improper to send
the report to the white house counsel's office for a privileged review. they get a shot at looking for the review. barr insisted they didn't do that and he got squirrely about whether the white house had seen it. now they are briefing them in preparation to rebut it? is that proper? >> i don't know if it's proper, but it's un-orthodox and the idea that the department of justice is part of the executive branch and he is the executive branch. he is essentially reviewing this material on himself by himself. this is his department of justice. i don't know if that's what the american public thinks, but that's the theory being issued here. i think it's inconsistent with what we expected from the department of justice and the insulation of the department of justice from partisan politics. >> barr has a history here that just came out recently.
ryan goodman has shown that barr issues a summary about a legal opinion and told congress what he thought was going to be the important things. that turned out to be deceptive. he left out the critical parts. the thing we have to look at is not only how barr will spin this, but we have to look at the fact that i believe there are going to be redactions of very inflammatory material that is going to be damaging to the president of the united states. that's a big problem we have to confront. >> two things on the redactions. one is that the justice department in a filing the u.s. attorney said there will be redactions about roger stone. that makes sense because that's a case that will go in the fall. that checks out. >> there is a gag order there. >> there is a gag order. the justice department plans to make available by review a copy of the report without certain redactions including removing the information related to
charges set forth in the roger stone indictment. congress will get un redacted version according to a filing today. >> lightly redacted. >> not un redacted. they have a claim. you served on the committee. they have a claim to the whole thing. this idea of lowest common denominator and give it to congress. that's crazy. they should give congress a congressional version. >> they could. to me what's the key is if they have a concern about the grand jury material, barr could have gone to the district court in d.c. and said please release this report as was done in watergate. he refused to do that. he does not want transparency. he does not want congress to see everything. he wants to keep secrets. he wants a cover up and wants to protect the president of the united states and it's outrageous. >> what are the recourses? public pressure and subpoenas. those are basically what there is.
>> all of those things, i think, are long game propositions. there is no media answers. there may be a subpoena from the committee that will play out. it will probably be a series of negotiations between the department of justice and congress and if the department of justice releases this information, it's unlikely to release the whole thing as a result of a subpoena. they will go through the protacted negotiations and if it winds up in court. that will raise questions about whether it's an issue that the courts can hear. >> that's an important issue. we saw it play out. robert mueller wanted to interview the president of the united states. there was protacted negotiations and they didn't talk to him. they were worried about what the courts would rule. thank you both. appreciate it. my next guest had been covering the mueller investigation.
natasha bencher and political analyst david corn from mother jones, coauthor of russian roulette. what do you make of all this, natasha? >> i don't think we should be surprised in the least. we have to consistently remember how bill barr got here. he got here because he wrote that memo and submitted it to the justice department unsolicited out lining the reasons mueller's obstruction was misconceived. that should have been or it was a huge red flag and that should have been the first indication that this was not going to shake out in a legitimate way. the yet is he is going to hold a press conference before anyone is able to see the report is really maddening to democrats on capitol hill, as i'm sure they made it very, very clear over the last couple of hours.
it's totally unexpected and i think we can read a lot into the fact that mueller and his team won't be there themselves. i don't necessarily think that was because mueller declined, but it's going to be missing a lot by the fact that they are not going to be there and that barr again is going to be issuing a summary of the report, even though his first indication to the press and to the public was that he didn't want to be summarizing mueller's report for him. here we are again back at square one. it's very, very clear that they are trying extremely hard to control the narrative. aides are saying what are they trying to hide if the report is a complete exoneration of the president. >> that's what sticks out about all of this. that word in your "new york times" article, a rebuttal to your not guilty verdict?
they ran around gloating in their enemies's faces. take that, you idiots. nothing there. you're dumb. david corn, get out of journalism. yada yada. the whole thing. now they want to rebut the report that gave them that? >> the rebuttal is probably aimed at what trump is probably saying. this is an illegitimate investigation, which wasn't. keep that narrative going. they are likely to get bad news out of this report. i am as outraged as what's happening tomorrow morning. we should all at least take a deep breath and focus on the thing itself. the thing itself is the report. for two hours, they will be out there spinning away of what bill barr is doing is pretty despicable and unfair and illegitimate. nevertheless we have to look at that report and see what the
evidence is for obstruction and see why mueller gets into this issue of the interactions that did occur. we know they occurred between the trump campaign and russians and the way trump react to the news of the russian attack, which was to deny it and get back to the thing itself of how we were attacked by the russians and how trump and his campaign did everything they could to aid and a bet that attack even if they didn't directly conspire with them in a criminal manner. please, the bill barr outrage is about 1% of the outrage we should have about what happened in 2016. that might be further illuminated by the report that comes out tomorrow, depending on redactions. >> that's the might. to your point there, this i think is part of what explains the flop sweat visible on the brow of everyone working in the white house.
they did not determine sufficient evidence. there is no collusion in the general term. donald trump hates it when people talk about the russian effort to get him elected. there was two options. they were part of a criminal conspiracy where they were clob rating. or they were beautiful idiots and dupes. if it's the latter, they don't mind talking about that either. >> just because robert mueller thought there was not enough evidence to establish, doesn't mean there was no evidence, right? i think that is what people are looking for in the collusion aspect of the report. surely there is going to be some explanation of some of the weird interactions that members of the campaign who might have been considered central like paul manafort. what they had with russian nationals that were not the
russian government. in that partial sentence that barr quoted from in his report, he said that mueller defined this as a conspiracy between the campaign and the russian government, which is very, very narrow. with regard to the obstruction aspect of this, from the moment that abc reported a few days ago, the white house was concerned about what they were going to say about obstruction. it struck me that that indicated they were not fully confident in the fact that barr had effectively conrated him and they are scrambling to get ahead of what barr said. >> i will say this. one of the things about this, for so long there was a sense of is there a smoking gun and was there actual conspiracy in which someone texted someone else like yes, we will work with you, vladimir. that appears not to have happened.
no smoking gun obvious back and forth. >> except that don junior said we are willing to work with you. there have been several smoking guns, but donald trump and his spinners and mob lawyers like bill barr tried to define the terms of the debate as he didn't conspire directly with the russians. there were interactions that encouraged the russians and frump after being told by the intelligence community that russia was attacking, he said they are not doing this and that gave coverage to the russians. roger stone did the same thing. while trying to get wikileaks to do what he wanted it to do. this is the frustration here. we have not one, but several smoking guns, but trump only said the only one that counts is that you find that text between me and vladimir. nothing else matters. >> here's my point.
that threshold being removed, the barr letter said look, that's not there. one of the things the report does is reexamines what we already know in the public domain and assess the behavior of the president and his staff members as to whether it was honorable or praise worthy or defensible. three words that no one ever bats around. are they going to be indicted? >> wrong-doing as you know is not always illegal. paul manafort did collude and trump didn't. >> we will take jerry nadler and chair holding a hastily scheduled press conference at this hour. let's listen in. >> hakeem jeffries of new york who is the chairman of the democratic caucus. the attorney general appears to be waging a media campaign on behalf of president trump. the very subject of the
investigation at the heart of the mueller report. rather than letting the facts of the report speak for themselves, the attorney general is taking unprecedented steps to spin mueller's nearly two-year investigation. one, he summarized the report and cherry picked findings in his march 24th letter to congress. two, he with held summaries written by the special counsel intended for public consumption. three he briefed the white house before providing congress a copy that helped them prepare a rebuttal response for the president. and now the evening before the report's scheduled release, the department of justice informed the committee that it will receive a copy between 11:00 and noon, well after the attorney general's 9:30 a.m. press conference. this is wrong. it is contrary to the attorney
general's own words to the committee. "i do not believe it would be in the public's interest for me in attempt to summarize the full report or to release it in serial or piece meal fashion." it now appears the attorney general intends to put his own spin on the investigative work completed by the special counsel and his team. the fact that the attorney general is not releasing even the redacted reports to congress until after his press conference will again result in the report being presented through his own words rather than through the words of special counsel mueller. the central concern here is that the attorney general barr is not allowing the facts of the mueller report to speak for themselves, but is trying to bake in the narrative about the report to the benefit of the white house. of course he is doing this before the holiday weekend so it's extraordinarily difficult
for anybody to react. this is wrong and not the proper role of the attorney general. i should add one other thing. the differently justice in a court filing in the roger stone case today said that some members of congress may get access to the redakked information only for use in secret. the judiciary committee has no knowledge of this and should not be read as any agreement or knowledge or a cent on our part. thank you very much. we will take a couple of questions. >> looks like jerry nadler will take a few questions. let's see what he has to say. >> we are certainly not satisfied with that. we repeatedly said what is demanded by the situation. that is that the judiciary
committee be given the entire report and the underlying evidence. so that we can make the judgments for ourselves and the judiciary committee can, as has been the case in prior situations, decide which limited portions of the report might have to be kept secret so as not to reveal sources and methods of intelligence for any other reason. that's a decision for the committee to make and not for the attorney general or the administration. >> one more question. >> we will have to take the time over the next couple of days to read the redacted report so that we don't find out that in fact there is very little left out. on the assumption that it's heavily redacted, we issue the subpoenas in very short order. >> thank you very much, everybody. >> will you ask mueller to testify? >> i will answer that. i assume we will find it helpful to ask muler to testify and may
ask members of his team to testify, but we will have to make the decisions after reading what we get, as inadequate as that may be. thank you, everybody. >> judiciary chair, jerry nadler holding a hastily scheduled press conference in response to the news that we got today that the attorney general of the united states, bill barr who summarized a four-page summary of the mueller report that the president said vindicated him completely and wrongly claimed a total exoneration despite the fact that it was an exoneration. barr is going to have a 9:30 press conference about the report and after the press conference, the reporters are going to go there and they don't know what's in the report. barr is going to tell them and at 11:00, congress is going to get the report and jerry nadler is not happy with that.
also saying he may issue subpoenas and may call mueller and members of his team to testify before their team. joining me now is one of the democrats leading the oversight, house financial services committee chair woman, maxine water, democrat from california. what do you make of all this? >> well, let me just say that i just listened to mr. nadler's statement and of course he's unhappy about the fact that barr is going to hold this press conference at 9:30 in the morning and a few hours later, the members of congress will have the report. he thinks that's not right and on and on and on. i never expected barr to do anything that would be respectful to the members of congress or to include us in any real way. he has proven himself. he auditioned for this job. he was chosen to protect the president of the united states
and that's exactly what he's doing. i'm not surprised. i'm not even disgusted because i knew that once he came out and he said there had been no obstruction of justice and no collusion, that he absolutely stepped out early to defend the president, to protect the president. i don't expect any reversal of that. i expect him to continue to play the role. he is basically a lackey for the president of the united states of america. this report is going to be overly redacted and i don't know if we are going to get anything new or important out of that. i just wish that the mueller team would come forward and i hope that mueller will come before the committee and have a chance to tell his side of what he has done and how the questions given to him by the
members of the judiciary committee that will help us to get at the truth about this president. this president and his minions are absolutely ridiculous and disrespected the members of congress and we know they have been involved with each other. his lawyers and his aides, et cetera, talking with the white house about what's in the report already. they are going to push back. they have advanced information. information that the members of congress don't even have. members of congress better know he is going keep doing this and disrespecting us. the constitution of the united states of america. there is no answer to how we should be dealing with him except impeachment. i have been saying it all along. >> okay. you have been saying that all along. that talk got tamped down a bit. first let me ask you this question.
you have served in the united states congress for a bit. you have been through various administrations, democrat and republican. you watched the interplay between congress and the white house often can be tense even within the same party and definitely opposite parties. this white house's posture towards democratic house oversight, where does it stack up in terms of how resistant they have been? >> let me just say this. i'm glad that you brought this up because we have the responsibility to do oversight and investigations. that is a role that is given to us by the constitution of the united states of america. president does not like that. he simply would try to have the american people believe that somehow we are on a witch hunt and we don't like him and we are unhappy because he won the election. he doesn't believe in oversight at all.
i and other members of congress who are attempting to do our job are not going to back up. despite the tricks and maneuvers he is putting into play, i and the other five members of committees that have responsibility to weigh in on this investigation, we are going to subpoena. i know that his lawyers are going fight us on subpoenas. as a matter of fact, we have subpoenaed, as you know, from my committee, finance services, deutsch bank. his lawyers have already been in touch with deutsch bank telling them not to respond to us. don't give us the documents. if they do, they will fight him every inch of the way. this president obviously has a lot to hide. he has been hiding ever since he has been in office. the kind of involvement he had with russia and with putin and the oligarchs, et cetera, etc. all of the indictments and the convictions that have been
gotten on the people around him, including manafort, et cetera, etc. the president is guilty of so many things and of course we should be outraged and the members of congress should represent their constituents and stand up against this president and demand that he is impeached because he doesn't deserve to be the president of the united states. he is overseeing a criminal enterprise. we have never seen anything like this. so many of americans are unhappy. the republicans evidently are frightened, intimidated by him. won't speak up and won't do anything. democrats keep trying to work with him. this man is not going work with us. he's not going to cooperate with us. he's going to keep going, raising money, getting prepared for the elections and basically undermining all of us and putting all of the dirt, all of the information, everything that
he can put together to be able to promote himself and we are going to be up against it in 2020, trying to get rid of him as he should have been gotten rid of already. >> one final question about impeachment. there was a period of time and you have been talking about impeachment and you think it's justified, high crimes and misdemeanors. you have been saying that for a while. leadership tamped that down. nancy pelosi said he is not worth the effort. you are part of the readership. are you breaking with leadership on this? i heard you be more and less enthusiastic about impeachment and you sound gung ho about it right now. am i misinterpreting this? >> here's what. i absolutely sympathize with the speaker and the job that she has to do, trying to hold all of the factions of our party together. whether we are talking about new democrats or progressives, et
cetera, she has to try in every way to move our caucus forward and to try and continue to deal with the issues that the american people would like to hear us, you know, making. absolutely moving forward on. they want health care. they want to deal with infrastructure and all of that. that's what she is trying to do. i absolutely understand that, but i believe very firmly that he should have been impeached by now. i believe that despite what she has to do and what others may think, i stand exactly where i started out early on with this president. that he is not worthy of the presidency, of the united states of america. that he is not worthy of us trying to even work with him at this point. he has called us all names and he has lied thousands of times. it has been documented. he has put together a memo.
if you are talking about obstruction of justice, when he sat on that airplane after his son, junior, had been at trump tower basically trying to put together information against hillary clinton, he died in a memorandum and said it was about something else. it was about i think -- >> adoptions. >> adoptions. that's what he said. it was not about that. we know what junior has said. when we lineup this, the basic defense of putin and wrapping his arms around him even saying he is going to bring him to congress and to the united states and put him in our face. we should be outraged by that. i would just says, you know, i appreciate again what nancy pelosi has to do, but i'm not with that. i am for impeachment. i'm for getting rid of him. >> you are making that very clear. thank you very much for making some time.
>> you're welcome me. >> still with me is natasha and david. congress is hot. you can see it. this is fundamental stuff. right, david? they have been kind of taking it from this white house for the first four months. i feel like you are seeing a breaking point tonight, frankly. >> i think you do. the barr mac nations offend the sensibilities. we had the break down of norms and the bipartisan courtesy over the last few years and trump has accelerated that. i go back to the point i made earlier, chris. that is to the degree to which democrats get mad and the process for which things are happening, that will help detract and protect trump from the original sin of his presidency. aiding and abetting.
while they have a right to be upset, they have to find a way to focus on the things before us. whether it's the russian scandal or deutsch bank stuff that maxine waters is doing. the emoluments case. they need to show the public while they can be passionate, they need to do the oversight in a reasonable and effective way and tell the public what the public needs to know. >> natasha, when we meet again, maybe you, maybe david, certainly me and the viewers tomorrow night, we will have new facts. that's undeniable. all the process aside, all the redactions aside and manipulations and massaging that bill barr is doing to this, we will have new facts tomorrow. >> yeah, i think so. it's hard to say for sure, but the fact that it's nearly 400 pages long makes it impossible that we are not going to learn something new unless it's just a
complete recitation of the indictments. all indications are that is not the case. whether it's new facts about conversations the president had surrounding efforts to fire jeff sessions or fire bob mueller or engage in other obstruction or more evidence that members of his campaign were trying to coordinate with russians in 2016, i think that a lot of this narrative is probably going to get filled in. with regard to the impeachment talk, there is also a real school of thought that in order to get the grand jury material f for some reason it's not able to get results in court, congress will have to launch proceedings to have that predicate to get the material. that's a very real possibility that democrats are exploring and facing a reckoning with making that decision to get this very important material. >> natasha and david, great to have you both on. >> sure.
>> more to come including the lesson republicans are learning about picking a fight with alexandria ocasio-cortez. more on that after this. prestige creams not living up to the hype? olay regenerist shatters the competition. big hype? big price? big deal! olay regenerist hydrates skin better than creams costing over $100, $200, and even $400. for skin that looks younger than it should. fact check this ad in good housekeeping. olay regenerist. now try olay hydrating eye. hydrates better than the #1 prestige eye cream.
mno kidding.rd. but moving your internet and tv? that's easy. easy?! easy? easy. because now xfinity lets you transfer your service online in just about a minute with a few simple steps. really? really. that was easy. yup. plus, with two-hour appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. now all you have to do is move...that thing. [ sigh ]
introducing an easier way to move with xfinity. it's just another way we're working to make your life simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started. i would invite the gentle lady to meet the coal miners who will tell you what the green new deal would be -- >> i like to reclaim my time. >> what it would mean for their families. >> last month andy barr invited or at least publicly performed a facsimile of inviting alexandria ocasio-cortez to come to his home state of kentucky and wanted her to go underground with the coal miners to school her on why it's a bad idea. despite the fact that there are no active coal mines, she said let's do it. now the invitation was not sincere. he had a justification for withdrawing the offer that involved texas congressman
crenshaw and ilhan omar. he doesn't want her coming. barr feared getting poned in his own back yard. >> i don't see the upside. i think she is intelligent and a lot of republicans are making a mistake picking on her. she is smart. we need to be very prepared when we debate her on issues that we are having a hard time with. >> kentucky apparently has ray pti-style politics show. gop thought they would catch us on the bluff. she still may go to ken tuck tow meet with the coal miner, telling the courier general. luckily kentucky has open borders. good to have you here. you are from eastern tennessee.
why do you think the offer was rescinded? >> i think they understand that the policies that alexandria ocasio-cortez is advocating for is very popular not just in the bronx, but all over the country. they also understand that she is a fantastic and talented communicator and she goes into their back yard and talks about medicare for all and federal jobs guarantee and the green new deal, they will have a problem come 2020. >> is the bet here, it's like the actual policies matter and they will out in the end. if they say i want to actually make your life better. here's how they are going do it. that cuts through the layers of cultural anticipation. >> he was saying he wants to bring her to kentucky and let the coal miners tell her how it will hurt their community and destroy jobs. people in my neck of the woods, their jobs are being destroyed already. mines are laying people off. we have seen that happen over
the last several decades. they want to see a plan for the future. republicans don't have one and they know the progressives and the democratic party that they do have, if we push that narrative, they are afraid they won't have a reput buttal for it. can you overcome the cultural fears? remember when hillary clinton went to west virginia. she went there and there is the fame outs line in which the context, she was talking about job retraining and job efforts. >> talking about the pain you will have to bear. there is a realization that those jobs are gone and we will have to move on and figure out something else. >> that's true, but the first part is true. >> yes, we will have to do something new. we launched a video that is talking about the future after a green new deal. it's got 2.5 million views. people want to see the big bold
ideas. the green new deal that we are promoting talks about that and i believe the republicans know that in their heart and soul. when they see us talking about that, it makes them nervous. what they have got is zero policy ideas to fix this problem. they started to even accept there is a problem. that's only a few of them and they have a president who is out of control and maybe in bed with russia. who knows. >> it's interesting to watch the evolution. it seems to be something changed where they feel they have to say something about it. do you think that corner has been turned? >> we are starting to hear a little bit of the muttering from the republicans about cap and trade. we are turning the corner a little bit, but there is more to do and we have to push them to make sure people get a fair shake. you going to go down there? >> i hope so. whether it's east tennessee or louisiana or kentucky.
we can do more if we put our minds to it. if the government is going to get behind them, help them rebuild their communities or federal jobs guarantee or a green new deal and support the opportunity the americans have to build a better life, they will get excited about it. >> how did trent from tennessee end up working for the congresswoman? >> she has drawn us in from all the place. >> it was a long journey that started on the sanders campaign. they went to a brand-new congress. justice democrats and here we are. >> thanks a lot. >> jared kushner has a carefully crafted mideast plan. why he is telling leaders to keep an open mind. roger.
hey rick, all good? oh yeah, we're good. we're good. termites never stop trying to get in, we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home. in't easy. 12 hours? 20 dogs? where's your belly rubs? after a day of chasing dogs you shouldn't have to chase down payments. (vo) send invoices and accept payments to get paid twice as fast. (danny) it's time to get yours! (vo) quickbooks. backing you. when do we -- when should we expect that jared kushner peace plan that has been talked about and worked on. i hope we don't have to wait another 20 years.
can you tell us when we will see the peace plan? >> in less than 20 years. >> how about being more precise? >> i prefer not to be more precise. >> america's top diplomat laughing at the idea of the israel-palestine peace plan getting done any time soon. the policy director caught my attention. he said this. we are going to see the trump peace plan. bibi's priority is to extract promises from his partners to back him once indictments come. this won't happen if they think bibiis flirting with a deal. interesting prediction. the much hyped and little anticipated jared kushner middle east peace plan won't be unveiled this month, holding off until at least june. no one really has been that invested in this extra kritd project taken on by the president's son-in-law where he
has zero experience in this expertise. >> if you can't produce peace in the mideast, nobody can. all my life, i have been hearing that's the toughest deal in the world to make. i have seen it. i have a feeling that jared will do a great job. i have a feeling he will do a great job. >> he's got a feeling. the decision to hold off on the peace plan as part of a political calculation to help netanyahu shows how much the america first foreign policy has been more or less farmed out and not just to netanyahu. despite the saudis hacking to death for an american newspaper, the u.s. remains in lock step and even as it continues to bomb and starve the people in yemen. after an unprecedented vote by both houses to finally end american support for the humanitarian nightmare that is the war on yemen, the president
vetoed the resolution yesterday, meaning that saudi arabia's crown prince, buddies with jared kushner gets to continue to call the shots and the people of yemen will continue to starve and die and suffer. if jared kushner wanted to actually make himself useful, he should talk to his father in law about that. don't go away. more breaking news about the mueller report just coming in. we will have more on the exclusive report, next. tter. if you don't know the plans available now, you might end up with a doctor you're not so comfortable with, or even worse, being forced to pay thousands in medical expenses due to coverage limitations. that'll be how much? understanding all the options, let's face it, it can be downright confusing. that's why i love healthmarkets, your insurance marketplace. they search thousands of plans from leading insurance companies to find a plan that's right for you.
plans that have prescription drug coverage, dental and vision care, and that offer extra benefits you may not even know were available. some plans may eliminate your out of pocket cost like copays and deductibles, and there's even plans with no monthly premium. they can find you a plan to let you keep your doctors. i know that's important for me. you may also qualify for special subsidies that lower your prescription drug costs. healthmarkets doesn't just work for one insurance company. they work to help you, and they do it all for free. hi, i'm dr. thomas stackhouse. it's a new medicare year and that means more changes and more confusion. many people may worry about the high cost of medical care and prescription drugs. the key to maintaining your health and saving money on your healthcare cost is finding the right plan for you. don't go it alone. make sure to explore all of your options to find the right plan for your needs. having helped enroll people in millions of policies with an a plus customer satisfaction rating, you can trust healthmarkets. you can enroll today. call healthmarkets now for free help.
breaking news from "the washington post," which reports the justice department plans to release a lightly redacted version of special counsel robert mueller's 400-page report thursday offering a granular look at the ways in which president trump was suspected of having obstructed justice, people familiar with the matter said. joining me now one of the reporters who broke that story, "washington post" national investigative reporter carol leonnig. carol, what can you tell us about the scope of redactions that we're expecting tomorrow? >> so, chris, i have to tell you, i have been expecting heavy redactions.
so this was a surprise to me and to my colleagues i think when we learned from sources that they're getting information that the redactions will be fairly light, especially as it pertains to information about the investigation of the president's actions and potential obstruction of justice evidence. and we are also told that the most important redactions will be those that implicate people in ongoing investigations, which is interesting in and of itself. but we are also told that there will be granular, to quote the source exactly, granular layout of the evidence that mueller's team reviewed trying to determine whether or not the president of the united states was trying to thwart a criminal investigation of his campaign and ultimately of himself. >> it seems that's the area where the most -- there is the most agita from the house on this.
i guess what do we know about how much of what's contained therein is already publicly known and how much will be new. >> that i wish i could answer for you. if i could, i would have posted that story. but what we do know will be laid out are things like the president's tweets. there is a view that some of his tweets had the appearance of trying to threaten the probe, threaten prosecutors, threaten the fbi, the idea that some of his tweets suggested a narrative that he believed to be the case. one of the things that investigators often look for in an obstruction probe is does it appear that a witness is trying to get other people to saddle up for the same story or compare stories. and we know that there will be some discussion of that. there will also be key witnesses that spoke to robert mueller's
team and gave testimony about their personal interaction was the president. you can imagine that some of those will obviously involve former white house counsel don mcgahn, former white house communications director hope hicks, personal communications they had with the president about the probe and how much they vexed him, how much he wished it would be over. >> there is also this -- in the story you talk about this sort of debate that appears to be taking place about this press conference tomorrow and barr's approach to that. what did you learn about that? >> you know, there is a lot of -- that's not really my area, but my wonderful colleagues devlin barrett and also matt zapatoski who cover the justice department have been covering that very well, and it focuses really the controversy is really over why are you going to have a press conference at 9:30 in the morning for a report you're not going to release until some time later.
i'm remembering kind of fondly when a special counsel investigating the potential leak of a cia operative's name gave us a few hours to review his final report, this was patrick fitzgerald. >> that's right. >> before we all gathered in a main conference room at the justice department to ask questions. that was, you know, i think a public service in addition to being easy on reporters. >> giuliani is said to be preparing a counterreport to the findings. there was some back and forth about whether they're going to go ahead with that. presumably that would focus on these obstruction issues? >> presumably. i know that the white house team from other sources we've spoken to is preparing at least some public statements about the wisdom or lack of wisdom of investigating a president for potential obstruction of justice.
so they've got a briefing that's deep enough for them to feel that they can start crafting their response to mueller's report. as for a full counterreport, i have not confirmed that that's going to be pursued at this point. >> there is a paragraph in the story that really caught my eye. i want to read it and get your reaction to it's. a senior white house official says trump has praised barr privately for his handling of the report and compared him favorably to former attorney general jeff sessions who trump grew to loathe over his refusal from what would become mueller's investigation. it seems like there is a thumbs-up for the new guy in the white house. >> well, you know, chris, one thing we've all learned in this roller coaster of the last two years is that the president likes people that he views as fighters for him, people he views as loyal to him. and that's certainly his impression of the attorney general. now we don't know whether or not the attorney general is coming out fighting for trump or not in
the way he's handled this, but the public impression is not that good about the objectivity of the attorney general based on two things he's done. it doesn't mean that he's not objective. >> sure. >> it just means that the impression and the optics are pretty bad when you say you're going to summarize mueller's report and your first bullet out of the gun is to say there is no case here. you may remember that we in "the new york times" reported -- "the new york times" reported it first, and we followed them quickly after, we reported some time ago that people on mueller's team were grousing rather loudly to their friends and allies that barr's summary was unfair and misleading. so that was the first strike. the second strike in terms of optics, again, we don't know about the objectivity of the attorney general, only how it appears. >> right. >> and the second strike is obviously this prepress
conference before you get to see the report. it's unclear to me why the attorney general would need to explain it if we could read it. >> let me just -- a sort of technical reporter's question since you brought this up with fitzgerald. i've gone to a lot of press conferences that centered on a document of public import. i've never had this particular experience where the press conference happens with no one having access to it at any time. then it ends and people are going to get it afterwards. have you? >> i've had so many different variations on the press conference and actual document that it's going to be hard for me to have a total recall. but i actually think that this probably has happened to me before, probably not in this high profile a case. >> all right. carol leonnig, whose got breaking news reporting at this hour. this mueller report will be lightly redacted, which as carol said was something of a surprise. a lot of people were expecting
heavy redactions given that there are four separate categories that the attorney general has already said he will be redacting. the detailed look at the obstruction of justice investigation. carol, thank you very much. that is "all in" for this evening. the breaking news tonight, the attorney general bill barr will hold a press conference 9:30 eastern time tomorrow morning to talk about the mueller report before anyone has seen the mueller report. fevered speculation tonight as we appear to be inside the 12-hour window prior to its release. democrats are saying it's telling that mueller won't be alongside his long time friend the attorney general tomorrow. we may in fact hear from the president before the report is out. both sides tonight conceding it will likely contain information damaging to the president. the big question this evening how much will be blacked out, how much will be learn, and what will be talking about by this time tomorrow night? as "the 11th hr"